The Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to an accused charged under various sections of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, observing that mere failure to answer an Investigating Officer’s questions does not automatically amount to non-cooperation. The Court set aside the High Court’s order rejecting the bail plea.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Shally Mahant @ Sandeep, was arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 166 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 329(1), 329(4), 62, 351(3), 305, and 190 of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with other co-accused, trespassed into the complainant’s house and committed theft of articles lying inside. The complainant claimed possession of the said house based on an agreement to sell dated August 6, 2025.
The appellant’s initial prayer for bail was rejected by both the trial court and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. On January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a notice and granted interim protection from any coercive steps, subject to the appellant cooperating with the ongoing investigation.
Arguments of the Parties
During the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab fairly admitted that the appellant had appeared before the Investigating Officer (IO) pursuant to the Court’s interim protection. However, the State contended that the appellant was “not fully cooperating with the investigation.”
Court’s Analysis
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale examined the State’s submission regarding the appellant’s alleged non-cooperation during interrogation.
The Court categorically rejected the notion that remaining silent necessarily equates to obstructing the investigation. The Bench observed:
“Not answering to the questions of the IO, would not ipso facto mean there is non-cooperation.”
While the Court stated it did not propose to delve further into that specific aspect, it noted three crucial factors that weighed in favor of the appellant:
- The appellant had appeared before the IO pursuant to the interim protection granted.
- There existed a “civil dispute between the parties with regard to immovable property.”
- The other co-accused in the matter had already been granted bail.
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held: “…we are of the considered view that appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.”
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order rejecting the bail. The appellant was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail subject to terms and conditions deemed fit by the jurisdictional IO. Furthermore, the Court imposed a strict condition that the appellant “would appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Shally Mahant @ Sandeep v. State of Punjab
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP(CRL.) NO.20 OF 2026)
- Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
